Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Mitt Romney's letter to the Senate

It's not about us, it's about the children.....

Dear Senator,

Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States
Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote “yes.”

Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.

Our society, like all known civilizations in recorded history, has favored the union of a man and a woman with the special designation and benefits of marriage. In this respect, it has elevated the relationship of a legally bound man and woman over other relationships. This recognizes that the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children is a home where there is a mother and a father.

In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an “evolving paradigm,” and that the traditional definition is “rooted in persistent prejudices” and amounts to “invidious discrimination.”

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.

Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.

Best regards,

Mitt Romney

2 Comments:

Blogger Jeff Fuller said...

Excellent add to your blog . . . glad to see you're back up and going after getting "bummed".

Keep it up.

Jeff
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/

3:13 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Robert Paine, Esq. said...

I am glad that Mitt Romney supports the federal marriage amendment. However, it is ironic that he is running around the country claiming to be against gay marriage when he is actually the person RESPONSIBLE FOR GAY MARRIAGE coming to America; not (as he would like everyone to think) our imperialist judges.

Did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three "co-EQUAL" branches of Government? Does he not have the legal/constitutional duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law?

Either the Massachusetts Court rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That limitation against legislating (by the way) applies to Mitt Romney as well. He as the chief executive (the executive branch) has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please I would like Mr. Romney to point it out.

Contrary to a popular misconception (except for certain lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this), gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law (read the Goodridge case). It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it.

The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out in Massachusetts (and as a result are coming to the rest of America) is because Mitt Romney ORDERED them to into existence . . . but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature.

Mitt Romney could END GAY MARRIAGE simply by revoking his illegal order (ordering town clerks and justices of the peace to violate Massachusetts law by handing out marriage certificates to same-sex couples when Massachusetts law does not permit them from being issued -- and against the moral conscience of decent public servants [TC's and JP's]). He should be ashamed at claiming to "stand up" against judicial tyranny as a political “position.” If he were an honest man, he would end gay marriage today and actually stand up against judicial tyranny, even though it might cost him a little politically. I believe, however, if he would have the moral character and courage to do what is right, he would easily sail into the White House. Indeed, he is looking a gift horse in the mouth by not taking full advantage of his opportunity that would distinguish him from all of his other opponents. But every day that passes is a day he has failed to uphold his constitutional and sworn duty to uphold the laws of Massachusetts. It is a shame.

9:27 PM, July 02, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home